-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tuesday 11. June 2002 17:18, Simon Marlow wrote:
I have a problem with the readline license that applies to ghc, and programs compiled with ghc.
The readline library is under the GPL license. This means that any program (including ghc) that links with this library must itself be licensed under the GPL.
*Grrrr*
Yes, you're right. I hadn't noticed that readline was GPL and not LGPL.
The BSD license is "compatible" with the GPL, so according to the FSF, just because GHCi is linked with readline doesn't mean we have to license the whole of GHC and its libraries under the GPL. But we do have to make GHCi "available under the GPL" whatever that means. Actually I'm dubious about the notion of compatible licenses - I read the GPL carefully and I still don't see how it is compatible with the BSD license at all (I'm not the only person to have noticed this, see for example http://www.kallisys.org/bsd-lite/bsd-gpl/?lg=en).
I think realistically we have to ditch readline for GHCi and use something with a friendlier license. BSD's libedit is a possibility.
Is it as good as readline? At least I have to date "felt" that readline is a good library.
As for the readline library that GHC provides, I think that will have to move into its own package: we knew we would have to start a separate package for GPL libraries at some point, it looks like we've reached that stage.
This is *so* annoying when all we're trying to do is write free software here. Grrrr.
:) The question here is, are you (plural) really trying to write Free Software or just giving something away now, which will be closed and hogged later? I'm being provocative, I know. I'm not trying to insult though, just to encourage a creative discussion. That said, although I'm not an expert on licenses, I believe the effect you're seeing is the whole idea behind the GPL: Anybody writing truly Free Software should have no problem with it, while any non-free efforts are left out. I don't know whether the FSF would call GHC non-free, I don't think so, but if it has a problem with the GPL, they'd surely at least suspect it might become unfree in the future. This is also the reason I'm writing this email, because I feel the same suspicion in myself. I'd like to hear your (again, plural!) comments on this issue, because as it stands, I keep a mark in my head saying "GHC doesn't want to be GPL... why? - Would they close it once they smell money in it?". I have that fear, and I'd be really happy if someone could relieve me of it. I'll admit here (for the sake of honesty) that `grep microsoft ghc/README` adds to the effect. Regards, Sven Moritz -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE9Bi5UBz8tX8KX/qsRAts6AJ4kb+sW7V848pe2ThXOJSzMf6TDpACgle/N Z9kARPUhE6RQh6hVC9nGqNU= =5eAI -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----